Friedman v. Live Nation Merchandise, Inc., 833 F.3d 1180

Friedman took Run-DMC photographs; Live Nation used them on merchandise without authorization.
Sony licensed Friedman’s images in 2005 for a website with authorized alterations; Run-DMC Style Guide and Live Nation calendars used other Friedman images.
Live Nation submitted product approval forms and style guides that did not address copyright ownership or clearance.
Friedman asserted claims for copyright infringement and removal of copyright management information (CMI) under 17 U.S.C. § 1202; discovery and admissions issues arose during litigation.
District court granted partial summary judgment on infringement and rejected willfulness and CMI claims; it limited statutory damages to one award per work.
Appeal challenged willfulness, CMI, and the one-award statutory damages ruling; court reversed some conclusions and affirmed others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether willful infringement can be proven at summary judgment	Friedman maintains Live Nation acted with recklessness or willful blindness.	Live Nation argues no evidence shows awareness or reckless disregard of Friedman’s rights.	Triable issue of fact; summary judgment reversed on willfulness.
Whether Live Nation knowingly removed CMI under § 1202(b)	Evidence shows the CMI was removed and distribution occurred with knowledge of copyright ownership.	No direct proof of removal or knowledge; district court was correct.	Triable issue of fact; summary judgment reversed on CMI claim.
Whether Friedman may recover 104 statutory damages for downstream infringers	Columbia Pictures supports separate awards for each downstream infringer in a mass-marketing context.	Columbia Pictures requires downstream infringers to be joined and adjudicated; mass-market context creates no separate awards.	District court correct; Friedman is limited to one statutory damages award per work.

In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2008) (willfulness can be proven by intent or reckless disregard)
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) (intent or reckless disregard standard for willfulness)
Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2005) (state-of-mind issues are factual and suitable for trial)
Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 423 (9th Cir. 1987) (knowledge and copying presumptions in copyright context)
Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting Co., 106 F.3d 284 (9th Cir. 1997) (separate damages for separate infringements when downstream infringers are joined)
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) (legislative history and damages framework for separate awards)
Adobe Systems Inc. v. Christenson, 809 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2015) (burden-shifting framework on summary judgment for first-sale/ownership issues)
United States v. Ramirez-Rodriquez, 552 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1977) (circumstantial evidence permissible to prove state of mind)
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (burden-shifting standard on summary judgment in evidentiary context)
Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir. 2015) (state-of-mind issues are factual and not typically resolved at summary judgment)
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (mass piracy and liability considerations in distribution context)